TopicParenting Children With ADD - Ten Tips For Parents
346 postsThu 14th Jun 2018 - 6:19am
The safest arena in which to pursue risk-taking involves Optimind Review theoretical development. No patient is hurt if ideas are considered investigational. Yet, peer-reviewed journals, academic hiring policies, and the gate-keepers at conferences can serve to retard discourse. Sadly, this prevents the evolution of intellectual thought. For instance, in the early part of the last century the radical ideas of Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr were resisted by physics academics. Now their thoughts are printed in required textbooks. Sorry to say, we did not learn from this. More recently the concept of neuroplasticity met with same coldness. Does this mean that our current methods of establishing the validity of ideas may be flawed? I'll let the reader decide.
When it comes to working with clients and patients we must be more careful in applying radical thought. The stricture here is that clinicians must consider the limits of compassion and prudence when bearing in mind their welfare. However, I question the appropriateness when narrow mindedness prevents valid protocols from being used when they are clearly in the best interests of a suffering individual. When psychiatric practices forbid the use of hypnosis and major medical insurance companies still consider hypnoanesthesia as investigational -- despite its history being older than the chemical variant - it leads me to wonder if we have truly progressed very far from the days of the Inquisition.